From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B00091F461 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 19:17:47 +0000 (UTC) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=XpjLQiTrNDnL9ln5 qNZAlGv1IGZLP1mAxCoAC/SGrQJehkdEuPB6+R0rIDnUhERVzh2mml1PX+6/PQdo mGm6VqFz/TNgqQgznEMQI+aZqYRU5ClcLq0Tuj1c/3ZsrOvpPaASpZVvUMmzCafi iHdZzA6iNKUVEFybAp5fNKdJ2cI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=H8tL/4qFVLl5sPmYHsQNwA aC92A=; b=tF2pLxWhA6otAWFiuzjWGeOWFPkNBucWEyHdODOkgY4BkJfiXH63as Rvi+TdDQNI8rtSJzvQbMrzCjjgyoMJk1xVMQcR6B3RZpDOCDuEfwUUFdIeXNCBXF HnDxxXwkSozxYFeT661vMvkvLn+gKtNkGQGmjsosDqCr79xw4gmKY= Received: (qmail 36124 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2019 19:17:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 36108 invoked by uid 89); 30 Aug 2019 19:17:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-HELO: zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/10] Revise the documentation of simple calendar time. To: Zack Weinberg Cc: GNU C Library , Joseph Myers , Florian Weimer , Lukasz Majewski , Alistair Francis , Stepan Golosunov , Arnd Bergmann , Adhemerval Zanella , Samuel Thibault References: <20190828153236.18229-1-zackw@panix.com> <20190828153236.18229-11-zackw@panix.com> From: Paul Eggert Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: <0b2210d6-d3f9-f859-63e4-2d06656d69de@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:17:41 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> This function uses a clock close to the clocks of @w{@samp{clock_gettime >> (CLOCK_REALTIME)}} and of @code{gettimeofday} (see below), but the three clocks >> are not necessarily in lock-step, and precise timestamp comparison is reliable >> only when timestamps come from the same clock. > I think it's good to add a cautionary note *like this, but I'm > worried that your suggested text might confuse readers into thinking > that these clocks might use different epochs or could be set > independently. I'll think about how to put it better. Yes, the wording "close to" was my attempt to prevent that conclusion. The wording could be expanded -- though when I tried to expand it myself, I found that the expansion was not clearer enough to be worth the extra words.